Complete Warrior Samurai Thread

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Since Gfunk's thread got derailed, I figured we could the derailing issue here.

Is the new samurai historically accurate? And does it matter?

My opinion is no and yes, but obviously opinions vary.

So discuss.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I LOVE the Samurai in OA. Great class, very nicely done. This one is...well...no thanks.

 

[Oni]

I resisted the temptation to say anything when I read about the new samurai over in the other thread, but now I gotta say.

Holy Crap, this new version of the samurai sucks. What were they thinking, and how does this drek get into print?

For one thing 3.5 isnt supposed to be a new edition, that's what they keep telling us. If you already have a class, that is pretty good I might add, why would you make another one with the same name, that is stupid.

And another thing of all the grossly wrong images of the samurai did they pick this, ick ick ick.

And one last thing slightly related that's been bugging me for ever since 3e, why the bloody hell are all katana masterwork, what's so freakin' mystical about them? Arg!


Ah, I feel better now after my slightly irrational outburst.

 

[Ackem]

Sucks. Should be a prestige class or should, better yet, not exist. They managed to pigeonhole and blandify it even worse then the other Oriental Class, the monk.

A "Samurai" should be a Fighter with a couple different, and possibly region specific, Feats on it's list. This Samurai doesn't make any sense from any perspective.

 

[Desdichado]

And that's essentially what the OA samurai is; a fighter with a few flavor tweaks thrown in.

Not that I have a problem with that. Doesn't invalidate the presence of another class that's more specific, though.

Besides, a d20 class that's "historically accurate?" Whachoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?

 

[Aaron L]

Eh, I'm going to name it something else and use it. Looks cool to me.

 

[Ackem]

. Doesn't invalidate the presence of another class that's more specific, though.

But this class is ridiculously specific. Only the 3.0 monk approaches how narrowly defined it is.

Besides, a d20 class that's "historically accurate?" Whachoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?

There's a difference between "historically accurate" and "random nonsense thrown together without regard for the archetype". It's not like anyone is insisting on anything along the lines of WIZARDS CANNOT CAST SPELLS AND MUST BE ROLE_PLAYED AS INSANE BECAUSE MAGIC DOESN'T EXIST AND PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY POSESSED IT WERE CRAZY, it's that their complaining that if this "Samurai" class wasn't named "Samurai" then we would have no idea what on earth it was supposed to be. It makes no sense.

Let's say you traveled back in time prior to the Bard being a class. Let's say you gave gamers the list of class features for the Bard with the name scratched out and asked them to name it. They would come up with Troubadour, Ministrel, Scald, whatever. People would understand the archtype/concept even if they didn't know what it was named. This would not happen with the Samurai. The name, and the concept invoked by it, have no relation to what the class is. It's the Spooky Warrior of Dual-Wielding, not a Samurai.

 

[LGodamus]

Im kinda witha Aaron. I will use it, but it isnt a samurai, I dont know what the heck it is, but it isnt a samurai.

Maybe it will be some kinda two weapon specialist, but not a samurai.

 

[coyote6]

Seems like most people object mainly to the name (which seems reasonable to me, though I haven't seen CW yet). Anybody got a better one?

 

[Felon]

Seems like most people object mainly to the name (which seems reasonable to me, though I haven't seen CW yet). Anybody got a better one?

Shogun Shredder?

Banzai Buckaroo?

Wacky Zashi?

Iron Shaft?

Cowabunga Dude?

Besides, a d20 class that's "historically accurate?" Whachoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?

True, the 3e OA rulebook's introduction pointed out right off the bat that Rokugan was derived from a card game that achieved popularity without making any attempt at painstaking historical accuracy.

But then there's a more basic sense of conceptual accuracy that should be observed. I bet most folks think Divine Grace suits a paladin a lot better than Sneak Attack. And safe to say most would agree that Survival is a more appropriate class skill for a barbarian than Craft (alchemy). A lot of folks seem to think this samurai is a bit too slap-dash.